January 28, 2008

Putting video inside the Photoshop UI

As I’ve mentioned a number of times, there’s huge potential in extending Photoshop via embedded Flash–something we’ve already prototyped in CS3.  Among the Flash Player’s capabilities, of course, is the ability to display video, including high quality H.264.

The idea of putting video inside Photoshop, however, sometimes draws blanks stares.  "Dude, why would I want to watch Transformers in a Photoshop palette?"  You wouldn’t, of course.  For a more practical example, look to the new MacBook Air.

Apple has posted a set of little videos that show off the gestures enabled by the laptop’s–er, notebook’s–new trackpad.  (Click the little arrow by the pictures of fingers.)  Each clip is short n’ sweet, showing just what’s needed to communicate the idea.

The thing they don’t mention here, though, and that I learned by watching a demo at Macworld, is that the videos appear inside the Keyboard & Mouse section of system prefs.  If you forget how they work, just pop open the controls & get a quick demo.

That’s more what I have in mind for Adobe applications.  Now, as with all the times I mention future ideas, I have to manage expectations: if you like the idea, don’t be disappointed if you don’t see video clips popping out of every dialog box in Photoshop.  Having said that, we hope to do things in a very Adobe way–opening the platform to the community.  Something tells me that more than a few of the savvy educators out there will see an opportunity to enhance the Photoshop user experience.

Posted by John Nack at 1:06 PM on January 28, 2008

Comments

  • rich — 2:51 PM on January 28, 2008

    Flash inside a PS window is fine if Adobe want to sell services but there’s more things to do.
    I wish the Photoshop team would instead put PS into all the Adobe apps, specifically After Effects. Right now it seems that PS is going to rebuild AE into itself.
    Illustrator and Photoshop should combine already, as should Flash and AE. If they have to be new apps that’s fine, but they PS could at least run as a window inside AE.
    It could get messy that way but it would be nice to have AI tools inside PS and PS inside AE.

  • Andrew Rodney — 5:18 PM on January 28, 2008

    Flash in Photoshop will be cool when you guys color manage it. Be useful on the web too.
    [Indeed. --J.]

  • Robby — 5:21 PM on January 28, 2008

    Kind of makes me think of Modo, from Luxology. You can press a key to change to help mode, click (almost) anywhere and it brings up a tutorial video (in the browser window). I swear that it was the quickest and most pleasant way that I’ve ever gotten up to speed with any graphics apps, _and_ I’m even a kind-of-newbie to 3D Modeling.

  • letterminded — 6:30 PM on January 28, 2008

    actually i’d prefer such video and other helpful magic better go into ps elements. couldn’t real photoshop stay/goto even more into pro? give me sharp and clean ui. optimize tools for “abilities”, not for “one trick magic button”, don’t try to find/restrict into workflows or tasks- it’s to basic. i know better what i’d like to do and if it’s repeatable/predictable- i script. otherwise it’s very different each time and i’d like to have EVERYTHING under my hand.
    [None of these things are mutually exclusive. In fact, they're all built on the same foundation. --J.]
    after spending several years in photoshop – you don’t need to scroll thru movies explaining blending modes or adjustments. i find tooltips as helpers the best and everything else just clutters, increases signal-to-noise ratio, etc. so at least if you’re going towards this- let us disable, hide and stay optimized for _working_ instead of exploring the program.
    anyway i’d argue that photoshop elements should be the program for 60-70% users which after learns basics and finally when understand it needs more- that forwards to photoshop pro.
    thanks.

  • Lasse — 12:17 AM on January 29, 2008

    Well napp have already made a series of 1 minute videos, so wonder who will make them when this gets out ;)
    I agree with lettermind, keep photoshop free, or offer it as something to enable. I would much more apreciate adobe spends time time removing bugs and alot of the minor bugs/quirks. Lately adobe seems to force alot of ideas, wich ofcause is well ment, but let the user decide. the ui is a good example of that.
    I like the idea you mentioned where it could be shared userinput instead, since each studio could make its own private notes and so on.
    Regards Lasse

  • imajes — 4:34 AM on January 29, 2008

    Regarding Lettermind’s suggestion. Why would you buy PSE to learn PS. They work differently anyway in lots of little ways. Also from my experience, most pro photographers aren’t geeks and anything that could help explain/illuminate PS tools/methods would go down quite well. As long as it didn’t clutter up the interface.
    John you should give Ableton Live a look as that has an different and from what I recall, when having a look at Live, what seems quite good way of helping you learn programme as lessons are part of the interface.
    Re the trackpad gestures – Hooray for Apple finally using the technology it bought from Fingerworks, I wanted one of their keyboards, but they were never sold here in the UK. I really like gestures as I’ve used them in Opera for years.
    But boo to Apple for pretending tap+drag and scrolling pads is something innovative. Both been been on PC laptops for a looong time and are well overdue, just like the alt click was.
    [Apple does have a particular genius for popularizing nice implementations of things invented elsewhere (e.g. the mouse, and later the MP3 player). --J.]

  • imajes — 9:10 AM on January 29, 2008

    I’d also say some of the things Apple ‘popularise’ [interesting euphemisn for 'nick off others]have been well known to those who use PCs, for quite some time.
    Apple also persists far too long with dumb implementations and awful ergonomics. Single button mice, duh! Thank God that’s finally changed and until recently the trackpads were a bit pants compared to those on PCs. And I’m still waiting for a small, powerful and usable laptop, Mac Air! Hot air more like ;-)

  • damz — 1:31 PM on January 29, 2008

    As a daily, almost all-day long photoshop user I’d like to say one thing. I can see some limited opportunity for multimedia for people learning PS or wanting to see something explained more. I’ll concede that.
    However, if there is one thing that has to be said about Adobe products in the past 3+ years, it is that there is way too much focus on “flashiness” and not much consideration of useability. And what better way to inject even more unnecessary flashiness than by using… Flash?
    For example, the pathetically overcomplicated new pallettes in CS3.
    How many tiny 4px by 6px drop down things are you going to use? Or the fantastic palette-grouping mini-tabs which would be nicely described as a “cluster-f#&k”. I can understand trying to save screen space, but it’s ridiculous – 30 inch displays are very affordable now, we don’t need micro interfaces. Oh but on static screenshots they look nice. And I’m not just one crackpot, all the designers I work with regularly vent frustrations on this.
    Another thing more directly photoshop related that needs more urgent attention than flash is the transform-warp function. That thing is so seriously counter intuitive and borderline useless I can’t believe it didn’t get major revision for CS3.
    So, back to the moral of my story: Isn’t the PS team’s time better spent making the best performing (and useable) product?
    It has to be said: there’s few things so sad as a company that tries to imitate Apple – I can hear someone in your offices lately saying “Yeah! We can totally be the iPod of Image Processing tools!”…. Lame.

  • Chris Charlton — 2:50 PM on January 29, 2008

    I agree. Hasan Otuome and I were talking about this and I mentioned the Illustrator (labs) panel that’s contextual.

  • Ann Shelbourne — 6:07 PM on January 29, 2008

    >However, if there is one thing that has to be said about Adobe products in the past 3+ years, it is that there is way too much focus on “flashiness”>
    I agree 100%. And every professional user with whom I have been in contact seems to be of like-mind.
    Please put the GUI back to the way that it was in CS3;
    [Not sure I understand; we haven't changed it from CS3, and already you're criticizing it.
    I don't think you understand the nature of what I'm proposing. I've talked consistently about making Photoshop more modular in order to make it more learnable. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Opening the door to better training content, in the context of the app interface, is part and parcel of that same effort. You haven't yet seen where this is going. --J.]
    and please take the time to read the postings in the Photoshop Forum’s “Features Request”.
    Important features that have been continually requested during the last three cycles continue to be ignored.
    [It's not a matter of ignoring anything. It's a matter of setting priorities based on needs of customers and the long-term strength and usability of the product. --J.]
    The problem seems to be that the current managers at Adobe are not professional and experienced Users of the full range of the CS3 programs; and neither do they appear to have much in-depth knowledge of the requirements of the related trades such as Printing and Professional Photography.
    [Okay. --J.]

  • Ann Shelbourne — 11:10 PM on January 29, 2008

    >Please put the GUI back to the way that it was in CS3;>
    That was an unfortunate typo which should have read:
    “Please put the GUI back to the way that it was in CS2.”
    [Okay, that's a more reasonable statement. Would you care to elaborate on the specifics?
    No single step is going to be perfect, and although the CS3 UI brings lots of improvements (side-stashing palettes, intelligent palette resizing, greater Suite consistency, auto-hiding/showing of palettes, single-column toolbar, easily customizable background color, etc.), there's room for improvement. I know that some people miss the palette well, and video producers in particular would like a darker background color on palettes. Additionally, people who like the side-stashing palettes would like to be able to stash them on additional monitors as well (something that's never been supported, but which is a good feature request). --J.]
    Regarding:
    >I don’t think you understand the nature of what I’m proposing. I’ve talked consistently about making Photoshop more modular in order to make it more learnable. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Opening the door to better training content, in the context of the app interface, is part and parcel of that same effort. You haven’t yet seen where this is going.>
    THAT is exactly what professional Users do NOT want. I don’t know who the people are who have been so “overwhelmingly positive” but I can tell you that has not been the re-action of a single PROFESSIONAL user that I know.
    If you want to make this dumbed-down Kiddie version, PLEASE create a different program in which to do it. Or do this tacky stuff in Photoshop Elements.
    [You can relax: No one ever said anything about "dumbing down" Photoshop. --J.]
    But for heaven’s sake just leave Photoshop itself alone. Professional users do not want it to be made more “modular” [Did you take time to read *any* of the posts or links I provided? --J.]
    or filled with cute Flash tutorials.
    [Again, no one said anything about cuteness. --J.]
    Call it “Photoshop Pro” if you like, but don’t mess with it any further because you have already done untold damage to a what was previously a superb product.
    ["Untold damage." Wow. --J.]

  • T. Schmidt — 5:13 AM on January 30, 2008

    The CS3 GUI is a nightmare. Don’t ask people who never used Ps before if they like the new GUI, ask someone who actually works with it everyday. Listen to the beta testers and professionals.
    [We are, and I've never heard that it's a "nightmare." I'd certainly welcome specific examples of what you like & dislike, however. As with everything else, the UI is a work in constant progress. --J.]
    You’re turning Ps into a semi professional app
    [I have no idea why you say that. Do you find the prospect of making Photoshop easier to use threatening? --J.]
    and I know you’re not a professional daily user or you would hate it as much as all of us do. At least make it possible for professionals to remove all the useless time consuming new junk with one click and get back to the CS2 GUI with no flash videos, panel icons, weird full screen mode and pop up panels.
    Do you EVER read the feature requests?
    [Every day. --J.]
    It is still, after all these years, not even possible to select more than one channel at a time and you keep adding more and more gimmicks. How about simplifying working with Spot colors?
    [I defer to no one in my frustration at not being able to do everything at once. If you want to dismiss what we've been doing in recent releases (the extremely rich Camera Raw, quick selection, non-destructive editing (Smart Objects/Filters), better black & white conversion, automatic alignment/blending, small but important enhancements like enabling cloning tools to ignore adjustment layers, etc.), that's disappointing. Many others would, and do, disagree. --J.]

  • jimhere — 6:14 AM on January 30, 2008

    Is your goal to put PS Elements out of business by making regular PS usable to everyone, even kindergardeners? If not, put your people (they’re sometimes called “resources” by management) on retouch, color correction and compositing rather than Help. As I’ve said, I’ll always pay for the newest version of PS, but I still resent you spending that money on fluff.
    [It's unfortunate that you're dismissing what I'm suggesting without having seen any of it. You're thinking of this as a zero-sum game, where time spent making the app extensible somehow hurts our ability to deliver rock-solid, killer productivity enhancements. Just the opposite is true: the time spent will result in a PS that's more streamlined (not more loaded with "fluff") and yet more feature-rich (because we'll have lowered the barrier to development, making it possible to leverage engineering cycles across the Suite). --J.]
    You’re paying the PS team (and others) cash money to come up with this stuff. How about finding the next Healing Brush, and leave the flashy help gizmos to PS Elements. Us pros basically know what we’re doing (you were one, so you know what I mean).
    [You know what? Pro users do know how to get things done, but a great number of them get stuck in ruts and
    I agree with Anne about Adobe employess being out of touch as
    users. They seem to think of themselves more as philosophers than inventors.
    [That's a swipe at me, I take it? Thanks. --J.]

  • Phil Brown — 1:33 PM on January 30, 2008

    Wow, I’m impressed. The last 3 posters know every single professional user of PS in the world.
    I must just have a bad memory and that’s why I don’t recall ever having met any of them.
    Either that or using the app every single day to my job and support others who use it as a part of my job must not qualify me as a pro.
    Guess I better tell the boss to stop paying me!
    I’ll tell you what I’m not, though – I’m not a PS expert. There’s just far too much capacity in that app for me to consider myself as such. In some aspects of it, sure, but I understand that the diversity of users and requirements is stunning.
    Pull your heads out of the sand, folks, and understand that there’s a big picture and there are users who do things with the software that you never even considered possible, let alone have attempted.
    This is not your own private application – it’s a suite of applications designed to cover a very broad range of functionality.
    If there’s something that you want in your particular area then speak up about it, but don’t shout down improvements to other areas that are wanted or appreciated by other people.
    I’ll give you a hint – if you sit here and cry and whine and complain and bitch and moan you don’t grab anyone’s attention nor provide any reason to take you seriously.
    If you post constructive, thoughtful, positive feedback and requests you’re far more likely to have that end up on a “to do” list somewhere. It’s the nature of the world, not just Adobe :-)

  • T. Schmidt — 3:40 PM on January 30, 2008

    Phil, if working in CS3 takes longer than in CS2 and things get more complicated then it’s a downgrade, not an upgrade and that should not happen. You don’t seem to use it a lot or you would have noticed, go to the official Adobe Forums and look what people have been requesting for years and what features now costs them a lot of time, if you are actually interested at all. There is plenty of constructive negative feedback for you to get into, if you feel you want to become an expert some day. I’ve talked to about 25 experts in real life (photographers, graphic designers and illustrators) and none of them liked the new GUI features. They hinder us.

  • jimhere — 6:40 AM on January 31, 2008

    Sorry about my tone, I suppose PS matters too much to me (what would my 20th century self have thought?). As Socrates would say, no one is a complete Photoshop expert. John and Phil Brown are right — If there are those who need the extra help, go for it. I (obviously) worry that work on image-editing tools would fall behind because people would be put on this project instead.
    ‘Philosopher’ is not a swipe (someone has to think big). I don’t work for a software company so I probably don’t really know what a ‘PM’ is. So I sometimes think John is loosing the trees for the sake of the forest (sorry about the cliche). Keep a little Aristotle in there with those other two Greek guys.
    [Don't worry; I'm in here making out with the trees every day! I do appreciate the follow up. --J.]
    Bust seriously — I’m not being sarcastic here — what is the difference supposed to be between PS and PS Elements? I truly thought that Elements was for entry-level users.
    [Elements is for hobbyists who don't need or want the full power of Photoshop. Trying to make it easier to use doesn't mean that Photoshop shouldn't also grow easier, however. --J.]

  • T. Schmidt — 8:42 AM on January 31, 2008

    J, I understand that you THINK the new GUI makes Ps simpler but the problem is, that it doesn’t. The one’s who haven’t used it, can’t tell and the one’s who’ve used Ps lose lots of time getting around it.
    Like already mentioned by others I get the impression that you are less of a Ps user and more of a business man and promoter (and you’re probably really good at that).
    [I wouldn't necessarily agree with either assertion. ;-) I started using Photoshop with v2.5 and spent four years using it professionally every day before I came to Adobe. Since then it's true that I don't get to live in the app as I once did, but I try to carve out as much time as possible to use it (mainly for photography these days). --J.]
    Can you explain why you force us to use your beginner gimmicks, instead of putting them into a Basic mode?
    [I don't know what "basic" gimmicks we've added. --J.]
    You asked for examples: The new Screen Mode, good for nothing, takes additional F hit to avoid. The Tool bar hiding the Ruler origin (0/0) which I need a lot, so I always have to tab it off. The icons, look cute but do nothing else than the Palette well did in a much better less cluttering way, now completely wasted room.
    [The design is a work in progress. The move from palette well to consistent side-stashing of panels will become a clearer win over time. I grant that there are currently pros and cons. --J.]
    Panels pop up WHILE drawing a selection line with the Polygonal lasso on both sides of the screen. Why would I want to use a panel WHILE I’m drawing a line?
    [Good point. We need to add a preference to suppress the auto-reveal of panels, and we should always suppress it while you're drawing. --J.]
    The curser then adds another symbol and so on and so on. It’s not possible to compare images like it used to be, with one image in FS mode and one in Standard window mode. Why did you do all that (each)? Thanks.
    [I'm typing this from the floor of the Vegas convention center and can't get into all the specifics right now. I know a lot of work went into trying to balance consistency across the apps against each app's particular needs and history. (We catch a beating in either direction.) --J.]
    Of course Smart Filters are highly appreciated but do I have to give up usability for the balance? Can’t you understand that when you work with Spot Colors everyday for years and always hope for an upgrade or at leat the possibility to select more than one channel, that it’s kind of strange to see so much effort going into gimmicks?
    Lightroom is full of that nonsence with skinning and tatooing little Yin Yang symbols all over the app but please not Ps. Stuff that into Elements and Lightroom.
    [Would you feel better if I said that we're not going to devote time to putting any "tramp stamps" into PS? :-) --J.]

  • Ann Shelbourne — 10:33 AM on January 31, 2008

    >Trying to make it easier to use doesn’t mean that Photoshop shouldn’t also grow easier, however.>
    What I fear is that your attempts to “make it easier to use” is going to slow Photoshop down;
    [I hear you, and we take that concern very seriously. --J.]
    put road-blocks (like your abysmal “Maximized Screen Mode” in our way; and fill our hard drives with uncalled-for “Bloat” from built-in Flash tutorials.
    [This point bears repeating: I'm talking about customizability. The whole point is to let you bring forward what you care about while removing what you consider "bloat"--and to do so very, very easily. --J.]
    Meanwhile, the things that we really NEED to have addressed:
    (like putting all of the palettes (except Curves) back to the way that they were in CS2;
    [You can't just drag them out (so that they float, if that's what you want), then save a workspace? --J.]
    allowing multiple selection of Paths and Channels;
    and giving the History Palette that long-overdue second Scroller (so that States and Snapshots can be scrolled individually);
    will continue to be ignored.
    [Believe it or not, things that seem simple (such as having two scrollers in History) frequently aren't. That's not to say that they shouldn't happen, but sometimes we have to invest a fair bit in the underlying architecture in order to get there, and that's what we're doing. --J.]
    And if your plans include any thought of giving us a GUI that resembles Lightroom’s in any way — just forget it right now!
    Or give us a way to set our Prefs so that we NEVER have to endure: “Maximized” and its Panels;
    a Lightroom-type GUI with dark palettes;
    or Flash movie tutorials.

  • Ann Shelbourne — 1:16 PM on January 31, 2008

    >Meanwhile, the things that we really NEED to have addressed:
    (like putting all of the palettes (except Curves) back to the way that they were in CS2;
    >[You can't just drag them out (so that they float, if that's what you want), then save a workspace? --J.]
    I know that (and do so with Layers, History and Info) but what I would like to see is a return to the “traffic lights”
    palette-closing buttons of CS2 or the replacement of the badly designed minuscule palette-controls in the RHS top corners of CS3 palettes.
    I also would like to see the return of the Well.
    But the most irksome item to me for the way that I work is the design of the history palette. If it is really beyond the capabilities of your programmers to insert a second set of scrollers, please could the Snapshots have their own palette separately from the History States palette. (Obviously the extra Scroller would be the preferable solution.)

  • Phil Brown — 2:58 PM on January 31, 2008

    T – I agree that you don’t want to spend more time, but not everyone is spending more time. I find my workflow improved, as do many other pros I know. I’m sure that’s not the case for everyone, but neither is it true that things are worse across the board.
    Sure, there’s time spent learning new ways of doing things, but once learned, they are often better / faster / easier. Sometimes they’re not and that’s worth making some noise about (for example, loss of sticky print settings under Windows, which was returned in the 10.0.1 update).
    I can assure you that I use PS a lot, both for my full time job (3rd level technical related) and my part time (photography), but certainly not as much as some people (and probably not as much as you).
    Once again, I think it needs stressing that this is not an app designed for an individual, but what John is fairly clearly saying is that they want to provide the ability for that to be the case – you will be able to work in various ways, with various preferences and options, and have them saved for you. In effect, you’d be running PS-T.Schmidt while Anne would have PS.Anne and I would have PS.Phil.
    Surely that’s worth doing? The alternative is that they need to balance the wants and desires of all users and provide a single path. When that happens, you typically have 2 choices – a general path that doesn’t suit anyone too much, but isn’t too horrible either, or a specific path that suits one group and another not at all.
    It *must* be better to go the way of customisation and allowing users to choose their own path through the app, surely?
    Anyway, I’m taking up a too much of John’s blog of late, so enough from me except to say: Jim, nice analogy – well said :-)

  • Ric Cohn — 3:14 PM on January 31, 2008

    I’ve posted lengthy critiques of the new GUI on the Photoshop Feature Request site, so I won’t repeat them here. I have also listed a few things I actually like about the new pallets (basically that they adjust themselves). I don’t think it’s impossible to improve on CS2, but I completely agree with those who complain that the new GUI is a time drag on many “Photoshop-pro” users. I have heard many complaints and very few Kudos from other professional photographers and retouchers that I have spoken about this with.
    Before anyone gets bent out of shape because they don’t hate the new GUI and don’t consider themselves amateurs I’ll qualify what I mean by “pro”. I’m a commercial photographer and a retoucher. I frequently have to sit down at a new computer and start right in using Photoshop. I bring along a USB Drive with my Keyboard Shortcuts and some Actions and Workspaces to help me get around some of the problems with the GUI. It’s not always possible to load these, and it would be better if the defaults for Photoshop hadn’t been so badly broken. In a production environment I need to be fast and efficient so I can concentrate on what I’m really trying to do which is make images. When a program slows me down (even a little) in doing something that is repeated many times in a day it’s annoying. When it used to be better and gets worse it’s very annoying! When problems are pointed out in a “Beta” stage and there’s no chance of fixing things it makes you wonder what a Public Beta (and a Feature Request forum) are for. I’m hoping the feedback I see here will be acted on. Thanks for hosting it.

  • Troy Stein — 7:21 PM on January 31, 2008

    News flash: you and I may not be an average user.
    Consider for a second that we may be different from the average user. I am product manager at another software company. I see computer novices using pro software all the time. They buy pro-level software because *they want to be* a pro. Not because they are one.
    I think John’s idea is very well intended to help people become pros like you. Yes a better UI might help them be even more pro-ficient. But, given the size and resources of PS dev team, I think his team could do both.
    I for one love the concept. I think video (flash) communicates more clearly and precisely than text does. If only I had an image or video to convey this message, then you could have saved all this time reading. ;-)

  • Eric — 10:42 PM on January 31, 2008

    The discussion derailed a bit! It’s not about Photoshop UI, it’s about Photoshop extensibility! :)
    The video tutorial in Photoshop is just a commonly understandable exemple of what could be possible with this technology.
    It maybe doesnt mean much to most of the users but it’s really a desirable thing for third-party developpers… wich in the end could be developping tools that you will not be able to live without!
    As a developper (and also a power user) working on complex project, it is one of my concern that the tools i create for our production needs are not too difficult and use the adequate UI controls for the task(who really likes to enter hexadecimal color in a field box instead of using color picker?). And a it’s a real plus if i can integrate the tool seamlessly in the software (not everybody have 30′ screen).
    For my own work, it’s important that i’m able to adress such need without having to go through heavy software developpement cycle (production is now.. not next year) developping a interface in flash is way easier than using ADM in the C++ SDK (or what’s available with Javascript api). More than that, if the interface can be done in flash… the designer i’m developping the tool for can help design the interface at his own taste! Now, it’s interessing!:)
    Sure, being able to do such thing (in flash) will not help very much with UI consistency: we know HOW CREATIVE interface designers can be with flash. Too much! But personnaly i think that anything is better than having to switch to desktop and have to double-click on a script! (having scripts in Menu or accesible in a script palette is already an improvement.. but is missing alot of flexibility).
    Sure, you can already drive photoshop and have complex user interface by using Visual Basic or Cocoa environnement, but you only get another application OUTSIDE photoshop, just like bridge.
    Having a palette (non-modal) in the software is way better and that is why i personnaly see this upcomming feature with great enthousiasm. I surely know what i could do with this!
    It’s true that there isnt alot of very high quality exemple available (production worthy) of what’s possible with extensibility (aside from pluggins world).
    But to give a exemple from flash world (flash extensibility), go have a look at Grant Skinner work: http://www.gskinner.com/products/gProject/about.php. That is showing a great concern on usability, design and also productivity. I also really wonder why such feature was not implemented in flash already!
    As a last exemple, imagine you would have a project (in photoshop) involving documents with few hundreds layers. A search tool could be usefull, no?
    What if you could have a developper do it for you in few days (or better download it from someone that did it before) instead of waiting for Adobe to do it (not like you want) in CS8?
    There is alot that can be done already (scripted automation/Pluggin SDK had been there for years)… but there definitively a place for more. I almost dream of it.
    And hopefully the tool that will be created (with better Photoshop extensibility) will bring back a smile to those that are not enjoying photoshop anymore! ah! ah! :)

  • T. Schmidt — 5:55 AM on February 01, 2008

    Phil, I agree with you, that Ps is not designed for one person and that’s why I talk to other users constantly and you are an exception (one person, just like me).
    J, the perfect way to make us all happy is to get a professional mode or CS2ish mode with the well, no icons, no pop ups (as a heavy user I can decide what I want, when I want it, don’t need ANY pop ups), no additional Screen Mode. Then you could stuff all the help things into one newbie or learning mode but save us others lots of time.
    As a heavy user I’d like to see more customizability towards simplicity, meaning being able to turn all the junk off either at once or better yet separately (well on/off, icons on/off, etc.). This way you’ll have a bigger chance to get your new ideas out as a proposul instead of a must.
    Every keyboard shortcut should be customizeable in a pro mode (even shift tab for window switching). Every Screen Mode should be optional. Then I’d only have to customize my workspace once and never worry about it again (which is the basic idea anyway).
    The pro mode should be the standard mode of course.

  • T. Schmidt — 6:04 AM on February 01, 2008

    Also want to add this:
    1. Those happy with the new GUI, could you give concrete examples like us others do? I’ve never met any of you in real live.
    2. J, I’d also like to put any appleness on my list, meaning I want to be able to turn transparent panels, grey area around the panels, shiney stuff, fading windows and other new planned clutter off. Give us some right to decide what we need, please. Pro tools don’t have to look futuristic.

  • jimhere — 7:52 AM on February 04, 2008

    I actually agree that it’s be OK to have learner-videos somewhere. I just hope that Adobe pays saleries to “healing Brush” type efforts first.
    I noticed that John replied to most of Anne S’s points except he was silent on
    …And if your plans include any thought of giving us a GUI that resembles Lightroom’s in any way — just forget it right now!
    so I figured I’d see what it would look like.
    I just had a baby,
    [Congrats!! We're T-minus one month exactly. --J.]
    so I had some five-minute blocks over the weekend. I made this mockup of what I suspect PS wants to look like:
    http://homepage.mac.com/jimpogo/psLR/
    It’s Flash so it stretches and clicking or mousing over things show my comments.
    IS this the future, John?
    (I prefer CS2 obviously)
    [Hah--that's pretty funny, Jim.
    Short answer: No, we're not going to take a very general, flexible application and start inserting steps where they don't exist today. The PS and LR architectures are different, and PS isn't comprised of a series of modules. We can, however, offer the ability to show functionality based on context. We can make it far easier to say, "Okay, Photoshop, I want to perform the following; show me just what I need to get the job done." If people often feel overwhelmed & want to know "the right way" to get things done, we need to take those concerns seriously. That does not mean we have to tie the hands of people who like things as they are today. It also doesn't mean I'll be popping up in your toolbar! ;-P --J.]

  • Ann Shelbourne — 9:48 AM on February 04, 2008

    Brilliant, Jim!
    That exactly encapsulates my worst nightmare and I am much relieved to see that John has no intention of taking us down that route.
    [And he had better not have …!]
    :)

  • T. Schmidt — 4:23 PM on February 04, 2008

    The main problem with being new at Ps is that the “Help Viewer” isn’t very well done, missing many terms Ps uses entirely. How bout working on that first?
    [We are. --J.]
    CS2’s “Help Center” was at least speedier, automatically entering the searched term in the Cmd+F box, to help the user finding the actual content on a crowded page of the help text. Another example for Ps’s declining usability. Put your videos in there and out of the app that’s dear to us. Oh and what’s up with deleting File>Jump To?
    [We didn't want to keep throwing resources at testing integration with a discontinued app. --J.]
    Trying to make sure we can’t use ImageReady CS2 with PsCS3 so we are forced to buy Fireworks for Rollovers, animated gifs and such? A sad development.

  • T. Schmidt — 8:37 PM on February 06, 2008

    In the prep guide it says you get a welcome kit, eventhough it’s a re-certification?

  • Martin Briley — 5:11 PM on March 27, 2008

    It’s not that this feature doesn’t have potential; but it shouldn’t be necessary much of the time. A well designed GUI does not require video to show you how to use it, yet the most basic tasks in Photoshop are often buried in obscurity.
    [Examples would be helpful. In any case, Photoshop is used for an enormous variety of tasks. Its tools and commands can be combined into an essentially unlimited number of combinations. It's unrealistic to think that all of these would be self-evident through the GUI at a glance. --J.]
    And there should be a moratorium on new features until THE UPDATERS ARE FIXED once and for all. Then again, that’s a Mac-version-only problem, so we won’t hold our breath…
    [No, it isn't Mac only. The {series of profanities} installers and updaters are an embarrassment. --J.]

Copyright © 2014 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Cookies (Updated)